VIKRAM @ GANJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by Vikram @ Ganja to challenge the legality of a judgment dated 30.03.2012 in Sessions Case No.122/11 arising out of FIR No.158/07 registered at Police Station Civil Lines by which he and his associates were held perpetrators of the crime under Section 395/397 IPC. By an order dated 03.04.2012, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/ - under Section 395 read with Section 397 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for five months.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, as projected in the charge - sheet is that on 26.06.2007 at about 3.15 a.m., at outer ring road, near CNG Pump, Chandgiram Akhara, Delhi, the appellant and his associates Sameer @ Sonu, Raj Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Amit @ Bouncer in furtherance of common intention committed decoity of 28 bags of plastic raw material loaded in a Tempo No.DL -1LH -4864 from the possession of its driver Jahangir Ali. It was further alleged that Vikram @ Ganja used a knife while committing decoity. Saleem @ Khan was found in possession of 28 bags filled with plastic raw material which he received or retained knowing or having reasons to believe to be robbed / stolen property. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation a charge -sheet was filed against all of them except Amit @ Bouncer who faced proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board. The accused persons were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. In 313 statement, the accused persons pleaded false implication and denied their complicity in the crime. The trial resulted in their conviction under Section 395/397 IPC. It is pertinent to mention that Saleem and Ashok in Crl.A.Nos.481/2012 and 480/2012 respectively confessed their guilt and their appeals were disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.07.2013.

(3.) SECTION 397 fixes a minimum term of imprisonment. It is imperative for the Trial Court to return specific findings that the 'assailants' were armed with 'deadly' weapons and it were used by them before convicting them with the aid of Section 397. In the instant case, the evidence is lacking on this aspect and benefit of doubt is to be given to the appellant.